CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .s4D87CF39 { width:199.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 22411/14 Nelson ARIAS MENA against Malta The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Egidijus Kūris, President,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Nelson Arias Mena, is a Dutch national, who was born in 1975 and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility in Paola. He was unrepresented before the Court. 2.     The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr P. Grech, Attorney General. 3.     The Government of the Netherlands, who had been notified by the Registrar of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), did not indicate that they intended to do so. 4.     The applicant complained, inter alia , of violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention, in connection with the duration and alleged unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention. 5.   On 8 December 2015   the applicant’s above-mentioned complaints were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. On the same day the applicant was invited to appoint a lawyer and to complete and return to the Court an authority form by 24   February 2016. The applicant did not reply or submit the relevant form. 6.     The Government’s observations were received on 7 April 2016 and the Government informed the Court that the applicant was no longer in detention. The applicant had nevertheless not written to the Court indicating a new address. 7.     By a letter dated 12 April 2016 sent to the Corradino Correctional Facility, in case that the applicant had put in place a forwarding address system, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant who was invited to appoint a representative by 10 May 2016 and submit his written observations by 24 May 2016. The applicant was also requested to submit to the Court a valid address. Furthermore, the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 8.     Since no reply was received from the applicant and there was no acknowledgment of the mail, and nor was the letter itself returned by the postal service to the Court, a further attempt was made by means of a letter, sent by registered post, on 11 July 2016. The applicant was invited to appoint a representative by 8 August 2016 and submit his written observations by 22 August 2016. The applicant was also requested to submit to the Court a valid address. Again, the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 9.     This letter was returned to the Court on 31 August 2016, as undelivered because the applicant was no longer in detention. To date the applicant has not informed the Court of any other address. THE LAW 10.     The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. 11.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.   Andrea Tamietti   Egidijus Kūris Deputy Registrar   President